A Little Break...

So I decided to take a little break from the arguments to do some more devotional type stuff.

I recently went though this passage in a class I'm taking and just thought I'd share some of my thoughts on these beautiful verses written in 1 John 4: 15-19.

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."

We live in a time and place where claiming an absolute statement on truth is considered ridiculous. Spiritual and cultural relativism is rampant and people are under the impression that even if there is a singular divinity out there somewhere, that there cannot possibly be one way. Here, John reaffirms the Truth that Jesus is the only way to be in connection with God.

"We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him"

A lot of times, people want to understand this verse as saying "Love is God." Notice, though, that John does not say this. Love is a description of God.

"By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world."

What is the 'this' that John mentions here? 'This' is referring to our relationship and connection to God through abiding in Jesus, which in turn allows us to abide in God allowing love to be perfected in us.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."

When we love, we are not to fear what others think about us, what people may do to us, or even fear messing up. When we have this kind of fear, we are living as if we are still apart from God. We are to be living with reckless abandon in the way we love God and others! Don't confuse this fear with the 'fear of the Lord' that we find in the Hebrew Scriptures-that is a correct fear in respect and loyalty, but never a paranoid fear that God is 'out to get us.' That fear is reserved for those who stand in opposition to God, but we are called to cast out that fear by bringing the Good News of God's forgiveness!

"We love, because He first loved us."

We love God and people not because we are so awesome and intrinsically good, for we surely aren't. We love because it is a response to the love that God has shown us and continually gives to us.

I hope this was a nice little break!

May the Lord God bless you and keep you in His heart for all time. Grace and Peace be with you all in the gracious name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The Existence of God: The Ontological Argument

The Second Argument: the Onotological argument.
(Ontological= ontos [being]+logia [science, study]; so this word means "the study of being," which would mean this argument comes from the study of being.)

1. God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must therefore be necessary.
4. Hence, God exists necessarily.

First formed by Avicenna, a Muslim philosopher, and more familiarly by St. Ansalem of Canterburry in 1077-78.

I really like this argument. Not because it is the most convincing argument, no, it really doesn't have to much sway on people. The argument is an a priori argument, meaning it is an argument made independent from experience, and in a culture that lives by experience ("I'll believe it when I see it") the ontological argument is more of a novelty than anything. I like this argument because one of the best objections to it is made like this:

1. The creation of the world [universe, everything] is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Richard Dawkins has a similar argument against the ontological argument in The God Delusion, and frankly, this is laughable. Number 4 says, "The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence." So, how can one conceive of a non-existent being? It's logically inconsistent because "being" implies existence: one cannot have being when non-existent because being is uneqivoically linked to existence, plain and simple. The "non-existent creator" is just a cheap ploy to side step the logical outcome of this argument. Even if one could conceive of a non-existent creator, a greater being would be the one who creates then brings itself into existence, but we can all see how this is just silly.

Ther is another form of the Ontological argument worth mentioning, but I will not go into it on the blog because it is very technical and frankly...I don't understand all of it! This argument is presented by Alvin Plantinga (one of the foremost philosphers in recent times and a strong Orthodox Protestent Christian). What I will do is provide a link to this argument, here.

So, that's basically all I want to say concerning this.

The Existence of God: Cosmological Argument

So here is the first argument: the Cosmological Argument or the Uncaused Cause Argument.

The Classic way to form the Cosmological argument:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Some of the earliest forms of this argument were made by Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece. Thomas Aquinas used this argument, although he formulated it a little differently, in his Quinquae Viae a.k.a Five Ways (in his Prime Mover and First Cause arguments). Now, what I like about this argument is that it is an a posteriori argument, meaning it is an argument which is based in part on experience. Also, it is an easy argument to understand, especially the Kalam version. This argument is used most frequently by William Lane Craig. I really like how he uses it.


Let's talk about the first premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. We know that it would be rather silly and quite impossible for an ice cream truck to just pop into existence in my living room (or any atoms for that matter). Things just don't pop into existence on their own accord. If they begin to exist, there MUST be a cause--something to bring them into existence. This is fairly intuitive and not so controversial.

On to the second premise: The Universe began to exist. This is where most people find problems with the Kalam Cosmological argument. So, there must be additional arguments to support this premise. the first argument is akin to the third premise of the older cosmological argument (A causal chain cannot be of infinite length) and is stated as:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist. -Don't let me lose you here, let me define what an actual infinite is. William Lane Craig gives this example of what an actual infinite is and how it cannot exist. Imagine a bookcase with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of green books (obviously they are equal in number). Now suppose you take away all of the green books. What are you left with? An infinite number of red books. So, infinity divided by two is still infinity. So, therefore, because the universe could not have existed for an actual infinite amount of time, it must begun at some finite time in the past.

So the supporting argument is thus:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

Now, it must be said that God does not fit into the category of an "actual infinte." Actual infintes are WITHIN time, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16). God is 'outside' of time (an interesting article, although it may be borning to some of you, on this: Eternal God: A Study of God without Time by William Lane Craig). This idea was formalized by Augustine of Hippo but can be plainly seen in Scripture:

"Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalm 90:2

"Even from eternity I am He..." Isaiah 43:3

"who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him {be} honor and eternal dominion! Amen." 1 Timothy 6:16

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last." Isa 48:12

And finally the third premise: Therefore the Universe had a cause. If the first two premises are true, then this conclusion necessarily follows. This is where one would introduce the idea that God is this "Uncaused Cause" for the Universe. Obviously this doesn't "prove" God's existence, rather it points to it. There is no one argument that "proves" God. Even if it convinces some that there is a God, it doesn't prove the Christian God or even that this Divine being can be known. I would say that at the least, this argument does provide evidence that there is an "eternal something" but more likely it is a Someone, for why would an impersonal entity create a universe that has the potential of personality?


That's all for now...please leave some comments so I know what you all are thinking! Love you all. May the Grace and Peace of our Lord be with you.

good website to check out:
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument